Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
chat_buddy

Kitab Sulaim bin Qais

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I am very curious about the authencitiy, acceptance, and value of this Kitab to the Shia community. A lot of "precedents of thoughts" can be derived from there. May I get some responses on this. No vulgar or extreme use of English plzee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Kitab Sulaym ibn Qays is regarded by the scholars as generally authentic and is believed to be the oldest Shia book. It is true that some ahadith in the book are quite shocking but nonetheless the general isnad of the ahadith seem to be quite authentic.

ws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sallam

This book is not authentic. Whoever believes it is should bring forth their proof.

Remember, Salim himself is considered as a very reliable narrator in Shiism. However for your info, many of the experts of the Rijal among the classic Shia scholars consider the book of Salim (Asrare Ale Muhammad) as a fabricated work that is falsley attributed to Salim by a very weak narrator named Aban Ibn Abi Ayyash who is narrating the whole book from him and also due to its being reported through Muhammad bin Ali al-Sirafi, the well known liar and Ahmad bin Hilal al-Ibratai the cursed extremist. According to these scholars the book contains lots of errors and false info, like the number of Imams being 13 etc. Many of the more learned Shia scholars do not narrate from the book.

Sheikh Mufid was well known for his criticism of certain Shia scholars for relying on this book.

Sallam

Edited by salmany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a chance to read a copy when I was in Indonesia. A friend there me gave a copy but written in Indonesian Malay. It scared me off a bit after I read it. It it was true, one's evaluation of history must be re-interpreted. I am still conservative whether it is enlightening cos I dont know whether it is indeed autentic. Better keep a close circulation. I have a copy but I wont let my countrymen read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I read the preface and how it mentions that the book is authentic, but the book was handed down to Umar bin Udhinah from Ibn Abi ‘Iyasy. I will ask the scholar at my local center since he has studied under some of the most prominent maraje of our times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sallam

Anyone who reads the book on their own do not know what they are getting themselves into. Sheikh mufid said the book was very deceptive and contained many lies and forgeries and should not be read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sallam

Anyone who reads the book on their own do not know what they are getting themselves into. Sheikh mufid said the book was very deceptive and contained many lies and forgeries and should not be read.

Can you bring some reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sallam

Anyone who reads the book on their own do not know what they are getting themselves into. Sheikh mufid said the book was very deceptive and contained many lies and forgeries and should not be read.

Can you bring some reference.

Sallam

He said:

"It is not reliable, and acting on most of itt, is not permissible. It contained a lot deception. It is better for a religious person to keep away from acting on what is in it. Most of it is unreliable, and its reports should not be copies. "(Mufid: Awail alMaqalat and Sharh Itiqadat al-Saduq and also Al-Hilli: Al-Khulasah pg 237)

Sallam

Edited by salmany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sallam

Anyone who reads the book on their own do not know what they are getting themselves into. Sheikh mufid said the book was very deceptive and contained many lies and forgeries and should not be read.

Can you bring some reference.

Sallam

He said:

"It is not reliable, and acting on most part of it, is not permissible. It contained a lot of concoctions and deception. It is better for a religious person to keep away from acting on all that is in it. The most of it is unreliable, and its reports should not be emulated. "(Mufid: Awail alMaqalat, and Sharh Itiqadat al-Saduq and also Al-Hilli: Al-Khulasah pg 237)

Sallam

Is this from first Source or Secondary source? Do you have this link on line somewhere or perhaps this book where shaykh claimed to said that? I am interested to read more about this

To my understanding, this book contains both authentic and unverifiable hadith same as Sahihs, Al-Kafi and others book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sallam

Anyone who reads the book on their own do not know what they are getting themselves into. Sheikh mufid said the book was very deceptive and contained many lies and forgeries and should not be read.

Can you bring some reference.

Sallam

He said:

"It is not reliable, and acting on most part of it, is not permissible. It contained a lot of concoctions and deception. It is better for a religious person to keep away from acting on all that is in it. The most of it is unreliable, and its reports should not be emulated. "(Mufid: Awail alMaqalat, and Sharh Itiqadat al-Saduq and also Al-Hilli: Al-Khulasah pg 237)

Sallam

Is this from first Source or Secondary source? Do you have this link on line somewhere or perhaps this book where shaykh claimed to said that? I am interested to read more about this

To my understanding, this book contains both authentic and unverifiable hadith same as Sahihs, Al-Kafi and others book.

Sallam

Sheikh Mufid criticized Sheikh Saduq for relying on this book and he said that Sheikh saduq was doing something most scholars did not do. Also Abu Al Ghadari another Shia scholar of the time also said the book of Salim was a fabrication. Ill get the arabic for you, inshallah (ill try).

Sallam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Surely this will not be thought of as a sunni/Shia debate, but brother Salmany, your words show to me that you have not read the book yourself. It's like you got the information from someone else, and It interests me to know who. I personally read the book, and see nothing wrong with it. Yes, there are weak ahadeeth in the books, but it's the first time I hear its rejected by our Scholars, especially Sheikh Al- Mufeed.

Please post a direct link to your statement, I would like to look at them.

Thank you

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

Surely this will not be thought of as a sunni/Shia debate, but brother Salmany, your words show to me that you have not read the book yourself. It's like you got the information from someone else, and It interests me to know who. I personally read the book, and see nothing wrong with it. Yes, there are weak ahadeeth in the books, but it's the first time I hear its rejected by our Scholars, especially Sheikh Al- Mufeed.

Please post a direct link to your statement, I would like to look at them.

Thank you

(salam)

Soon, and i know why some people may have decided to accept the book...

Sallam

Edited by salmany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Salmany dosnt know what he's talking about, he's merely writting what other people ( whom I might know) are telling him. He has no knowledge whatsoever of what he's talking about.

(Note that I'm not saying he is right or wrong)

(salam)

Hezbullahi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

(salam)

Salmany dosnt know what he's talking about, he's merely writting what other people ( whom I might know) are telling him. He has no knowledge whatsoever of what he's talking about.

(salam)

Hezbullahi

Sallam

Jazakallah for the comment.

Sallam

Edited by salmany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Soon, and i know why some people may have decided to accept the book...

Why soon man, post it now, it seems to me you know what your talking about, and I’m sore you got that Quote of Sheikh Al-Mufeed from somewhere, so I would like you to post the link to the site you got your information from.

A simple quote and reference is not enough, I don't think Sheikh Al-Mufeed said something like this, besides, sheikh Al-Mufeed died 50 years before Sheikh Al-Tussi, so I’m kind of lost here, how can he condemn something he wasn't even alive to see?

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

Why soon man, post it now, it seems to me you know what your talking about, and I’m sore you got that Quote of Sheikh Al-Mufeed from somewhere, so I would like you to post the link to the site you got your information from.

A simple quote and reference is not enough, I don't think Sheikh Al-Mufeed said something like this, besides, sheikh Al-Mufeed died 50 years before Sheikh Al-Tussi, so I’m kind of lost here, how can he condemn something he wasn't even alive to see?

(salam)

Sallam

bro (lol i wrote sis b4 had to edit see you have me all confsued!) im at uni :) All my scans and everything are at home and im having mid terms to. Youve been in that situation and im sure you can understand where im coming from. :)

Sheikh tusi?

Edited by salmany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

take it easy on Salman. Give him a chance to answer instead of saying he has no knowledge. That is a bit harsh. I know he has a not good track record with us shi'a but its ramadan and time to turn a new leaf. Atleast for this month :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sallam

Brother Noor, let me just say that i may not know everything abt the topic and most of the things i stated were from the back of my head. However, ill try my best to get you the Arabic so you can translate it. However, in all fairness i wish to quote one thing shaikh Mufid said:

"A person should go to the scholars when reading this book to see the right from wrong"

It could have well been based on ijtihad that one person foudn it more authentic then others. If that is the case then follow the mujtahid you trust :)

Sallam

Edited by salmany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

From what I know, Shaykh Al-Kulyani and Sayyid Sharif Al-Radhi quoted extensively from Kitab Sulaym Ibn Qays Al-Hilali and considered it to be by and large authentic. I think the book should be regarded as Bihar Al-Anwar would; generally authentic with a few dubious ahadith.

ws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sallam

Brother Noor, let me just say that i may not know everything abt the topic and most of the things i stated were from the back of my head. However, ill try my best to get you the Arabic so you can translate it. However, in all fairness i wish to quote one thing shaikh Mufid said:

"A person should go to the scholars when reading this book to see the right from wrong"

It could have well been based on ijtihad that one person foudn it more authentic then others. If that is the case then follow the mujtahid you trust :)

Sallam

(salam)

Bro Salmany,

Did you read the preface of the book?

I think it said Allamah Majlisi said (let me paraphrase) "whosoever amongst our Shia and amongst the people who love us, if they don't posses Kitab Sulaim bin Qais al-Hilali, they do not know truly know us. ..."

This is supposed to be in Bihar ul Anwar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

(salam)

From what I know, Shaykh Al-Kulyani and Sayyid Sharif Al-Radhi quoted extensively from Kitab Sulaym Ibn Qays Al-Hilali and considered it to be by and large authentic. I think the book should be regarded as Bihar Al-Anwar would; generally authentic with a few dubious ahadith.

ws

Sallam

Yes al kulayni and Numani used this book to prove the twelver imam theories and the hadith about the 12 imams and their names. They took these hadith from Salims book, and the Zaidites accused the twelvers of taking from a weak book and of forging hadiths. Some Shia scholars agreed with the Zaidis on the book being weak and that it was only attributed to Salim, but not realy his or had weak and extremists narrators but no one agreed with the zaidites on the 12 imam thing.

But as mentioned Al Kulayni was least concerned about the Sanad.

Sallam

Edited by salmany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sallam

Brother Noor, let me just say that i may not know everything abt the topic and most of the things i stated were from the back of my head. However, ill try my best to get you the Arabic so you can translate it. However, in all fairness i wish to quote one thing shaikh Mufid said:

"A person should go to the scholars when reading this book to see the right from wrong"

It could have well been based on ijtihad that one person foudn it more authentic then others. If that is the case then follow the mujtahid you trust :)

Sallam

(salam)

Bro Salmany,

Did you read the preface of the book?

I think it said Allamah Majlisi said (let me paraphrase) "whosoever amongst our Shia and amongst the people who love us, if they don't posses Kitab Sulaim bin Qais al-Hilali, they do not know truly know us. ..."

This is supposed to be in Bihar ul Anwar.

Sallam

Brother give me the reference exactly and ill look it up. As i said these maybe Ijtihadi differences :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...